It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
As per usual, Coop has gone into hiding. When you can't face the evidence, just ignore it. Works every time - for him anyway.




posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


originally posted by: Phantom423
As per usual, Coop has gone into hiding. When you can't face the evidence, just ignore it. Works every time - for him anyway.


Phantom423,

'When you immediately know the candle light is fire,
The meal was cooked along time ago'


Aka...

Hindsight's a Beitch!!

Coomba98
[rip Stargate]
edit on 12-10-2018 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
As per usual, Coop has gone into hiding. When you can't face the evidence, just ignore it. Works every time - for him anyway.



You brought nothing to the table. You change the subject when you are caught being wrong. Will you admit that antibiotic resistance is attributed to epigenetic inheritance? Even your science gods say it is true. Are you anti-science now?

There is no use arguing, that is why I left. If you will not admit when you are wrong then this discussion is pointless.

It is laughable that when PhotonEffect first posted the data about epigenetic inheritance, it was unanimously praised by the evolution gallop. Yet now when I post it, it must be wrong? You guys are absurd. You have no aspirations for objective truth.



I honestly don't think you guys even know what you believe. PhotonEffect is an exception, because she/he can actually articulate their beliefs and offer information in their own words.
edit on 15-10-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

As long as nothing is on the table, here's what I suggest: Write a letter to each one of these authors and tell them that they're wrong. Tell them that you can prove that no mutations occur. I'm sure they'll be interested in your "data", of which you have none. I doubt that you've ever been in a lab.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I said the same thing in another thread just a few minutes ago. If H. Naledi doesn't demonstrate anything and the remains don't support the claims write to Lee Berger at University of Witwatersrand or John Hawkes at U of Wisconsin who actually worked the Rising Star Cave dig and tell them they're wrong and then post his message and replies I'm not holding my breath though. You can also download the 3D scans of every fossil at Witwatersrand and print them out at home on a 3D printer. Lee Berger is revolutionizing Paleoanthropology with his extremely open access to all of his work when in the past, many Anthropologists hoarded and wouldn't share remains or work for years until they published and even then access to the physical material was greatly limited. Dr. Berger eagerly invites people to look at all of the data as it's coming in and is open to discussing the material so Coop should get off of his high horse and do the legwork.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Coop wouldn't dare do that. He'd be flattened as if an 18 wheeler ran over him. It's tactical stupidity - by saying nothing is on the table when the table is full makes him feel superior - he knows something the rest of us don't know. He exhibits the psychotic behavior outlined in the article below - obsessive, delusional, separated from reality.




Is there an obsessive psychosis? Aetiological and prognostic factors of an atypical form of obsessive-compulsive neurosis. Solyom L, DiNicola VF, Phil M, Sookman D, Luchins D.

Abstract The study explores whether an atypical form of obsessional illness can be delineated and separated from the conventional form of obsessive-compulsive neurosis (OCN). From a group of 45 obsessive patients, 8 were selected on the basis of 3 criteria: presence of a severely debilitating main obsessive symptom; bordering on the delusional; no schizophrenic symptoms. Assessment and outcome measures included the Psychiatric Questionnaire, the Leyton Obsessional Inventory, Fear Survey Schedule, and IPAT Self-Analysis Form. Self-assessment forms allowed patients to make social adjustment and neurotic symptom ratings. In a multimodal approach, patients were assigned to behavioural and pharmacological treatments on the basis of severity. Reassessment took place after 50 sessions of therapy. Results of analysis of variance statistics indicated that the atypical group had a more malignant form of illness, with more varied and severe obsessions. A poorer prognosis for the atypical group was indicated by: greater social maladjustment, poor employment records, illness of longer duration showing no remissions despite more courses of treatment, and poor response to treatment throughout. The atypical group manifested fewer characteristic features of OCN (example: fewer precipitating events). On the other hand, schizophrenia was not imputed, although delusion-like experiences in the atypical group suggest a psychotic form of illness. The term "obsessive psychosis" suggested by Strauss and recently investigated by Weiss et al and Robinson et al is proposed for our atypical group. Results are compared with those of other investigators. It is concluded that the delineation of a subgroup of obsessional illness is desirable for research and therapy since a form of atypical obsessional illness or obsessive psychosis can be differentiated on aetiological, phenomenological and prognostic factors.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 15-10-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




I honestly don't think you guys even know what you believe. PhotonEffect is an exception, because she/he can actually articulate their beliefs and offer information in their own words.


Science is not a religion. We don't "believe". We investigate. Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. There's no "belief system", no religion, no witchcraft, no frauds like Ken Ham. It's the pragmatic application of the scientific method to areas of our interest. You have no scientific skills. You're like a garbage collector looking for a diamond in a haystack. It ain't there. The truth might set you free, although it's probably too late for that too.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: peter vlar

Coop wouldn't dare do that. He'd be flattened as if an 18 wheeler ran over him. It's tactical stupidity - by saying nothing is on the table when the table is full makes him feel superior - he knows something the rest of us don't know. He exhibits the psychotic behavior outlined in the article below - obsessive, delusional, separated from reality.



you are extremely unpleasant to debate. I have literally learned nothing from you. Ever. Peter Vlar at least knows contemporary beliefs on archaeological theory, Tzarchasm rigorously fact checks me and is sometimes funny, Noinden, well actually, noinden is on your level - I don't think either of you are capable of explaining things on your own. Just a whole lot of snark and condescending tone, never addressing my actual points. Constantly hurling ad hominems because it makes you feel better or something. You guys are like textbook parrots, totally incapable of independent thought. This isn't an insult, it is objectively what you do. Which is fine, go ahead and dogmatically defend the textbooks that inevitably get changed every year. but I realized there is nothing to be learned from these back-and-forths with you.

You guys should read how PhotonEffect posts in these threads - it is constructive, informative, and respectful.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You know neighbour, when you are unable to debate with someone. YOU call someone a chauvinist, or unpleasant to debate. What this seems to really mean, is that you can not debate. The ad hominems stem from you usually.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You're living in some type of fantasy world. All your questions are always answered with backup evidence. You choose to ignore it. This is just a repeat performance where you don't read the papers because you can't. You don't understand science and how it works. You don't know genetics and how it works. You don't understand zip about the topics you post.

Debate? Who's debating? You make unfounded statements without evidence and expect to be congratulated.

Learning? You don't learn from anyone. You come back with the same trash and never acknowledge that others have called you on it time and time again.

You're your own roadblock to learning. If you had half a brain you would read the papers that have been posted and either agree or disagree with them. You do neither. You simply expect everyone to fall for your redundant diatribes that always prove our points. The H. Naledi discussion is a classic example. Peter, who happens to know first hand what he's talking about, presented peer-reviewed evidence about the fossils. He's been there, done that! But rather than discuss the details, you simply say "there's no complete skull" as if nothing else existed. You're like the self inflicted wound that never heals.

Any time you want to debate a paper or a topic, there isn't anyone on this board who wouldn't do so. But you're scared to death to debate. As I have offered many, many times, pick a paper or a topic and we'll have a real debate, with the rules, with the evidence, with the protocol that a good debate requires. I don't expect you to do that any time soon.

Your obsessive behavior is evidence that you're out of touch with reality.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Mod Note:

Opinions of each other is always off topic and often an issue of manners, too much of which can and does get people posting banned.

Knock off the sniping at each other and return to discussing the topic or the thread may be closed, the people engaging in it may be posting banned or both. Be warned.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You're right I say unnecessary things some times and I'm sorry. let's all agree to stop.


The point is, epigenetics is responsible for lactase persistence. It is in an accredited journal, why do you guys vehemently disagree with the paper?

" Epigenetically-controlled regulatory elements were found to account for the differences in lactase mRNA levels between individuals, intestinal cell types and species." Source



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

If it were epigenetics, and only epigenetics, one would not be able to explain it away as an SNP mutation (which it is) and that there are variations of it.

Stop making things up.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

If it were epigenetics, and only epigenetics, one would not be able to explain it away as an SNP mutation (which it is) and that there are variations of it.

Stop making things up.


I never said it was epigenetics and only epigenetics. Epigenetics is a broad term that encompasses the regulation of a gene. In this way, all genes are constantly undergoing epigenetic control. The study found:

"Our study revealed that lactase non-persistence results from accumulation of transcriptionally suppressive epigenetic changes on haplotypes carrying the SNP C-13010 allele"

...whereas one of the other alleles for the LCT promoter region was correlated with a lack of epigenetic suppression. No matter how you look at it, epigenetics is the overwatch that is the regulating gate for the expression of genes. Lactase is no exception.

SNPs are alleles that vary by one nucleotide. They can have effects on physiology, but it is nothing in comparison to the effects of epigenetic control
edit on 15-10-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again you are not reading what I aasked. You said it was the primary mode. Prove it.

BURDEN
OF
PROOF

etc



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again you are not reading what I aasked. You said it was the primary mode. Prove it.

BURDEN
OF
PROOF

etc


Considering epigenetics are the main controlling factor of all genes (and therefore proteins), it seems it is your burden to prove that the lactase gene would be an exemption from this rule.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again you are not proving anything, you are making statements, based on your own personal bias. Science requires more. It is science we are talking here, not your beliefs.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again you are not proving anything, you are making statements, based on your own personal bias. Science requires more. It is science we are talking here, not your beliefs.



1) Epigenetic mechanisms are the primary modulator of all genes.
2) Lactase is a gene
3) Therefore, epigenetic mechanisms are the primary modulator of the lactase gene.

There are already studies demonstrating this:

"However, an epigenome-wide approach using the Illumina Infinium HM450 bead chip identified a differentially methylated position in the LCT promoter where methylation levels are associated with the genotype at −13910C > T, the persistence/non-persistence phenotype and lactase enzymatic activity"
Study 2018

"epigenetically controlled regulatory elements... accounted for inter-individual differences of lactase mRNA level in a Lithuanian cohort of individuals"
Study 2017

" Epigenetically-controlled regulatory elements were found to account for the differences in lactase mRNA levels between individuals, intestinal cell types and species."
study 2016

edit on 15-10-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again you are not proving anything, you are making statements, based on your own personal bias. Science requires more. It is science we are talking here, not your beliefs.



1) Epigenetic mechanisms are the primary modulator of all genes.

No, they aren't and the papers that you believe support that position, as usual, fall very short.


2) Lactase is a gene
That one you got right, bravo!


3) Therefore, epigenetic mechanisms are the primary modulator of the lactase gene.


Again, No


There are already studies demonstrating this:

"However, an epigenome-wide approach using the Illumina Infinium HM450 bead chip identified a differentially methylated position in the LCT promoter where methylation levels are associated with the genotype at −13910C > T, the persistence/non-persistence phenotype and lactase enzymatic activity"
Study 2018


This paper shows thst they used a technique used for investigating epigenetics in order to better understand the DNA methylation of the LCT


"epigenetically controlled regulatory elements... accounted for inter-individual differences of lactase mRNA level in a Lithuanian cohort of individuals"
Study 2017


Differences influenced by epigenetics yes , the main factor in gene expression, not quite. Sorry.


" Epigenetically-controlled regulatory elements were found to account for the differences in lactase mRNA levels between individuals, intestinal cell types and species."
study 2016


All this is saying is that epigenetics play a role in how the gene expresses itself. If the mutation had not occurred then there wouldn't be genes there to express the trait in the first place. It's not brain surgery. Fromnthenlinknthstnyounincorrectly
Believe supports epigenetics as the primary force—

Genetic factors contribute to epigenetic changes occurring with age at the regulatory elements, as lactase persistence- and non-persistence-DNA haplotypes demonstrated markedly different epigenetic aging. Thus, genetic factors facilitate a gradual accumulation of epigenetic changes with age to affect phenotypic outcome.

edit on 15-10-2018 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


(1) You've yet to demonstrate that is so. You are saying it as if that is so, but not proven it to be thus.
(2) Eh actually Lactase is an enzyme. SO he did not get it right
LCT would be the gene.
(3) As I've pointed out (via a wikipedia link, as I'm unclear if you can actually any papers I might supply). The Lactase persistence is due to an SNP.

I repeat, you are not understanding genetics of epigenetics. So you are getting it wrong.

Anyhow back into plant, I've got a long night ahead, and a long day tomorrow.




top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join